History Russian Peasants and Forced Collectivization

Joseph Stalin, with some justification, is perhaps one of the least popular leaders of recent world history. His brutal actions when enforcing collectivized agriculture upon the Russian peasantry caused casualties so high the numbers of the dead, in terms of the amount of the population of his nation that was killed, exceed that of the Holocaust.

According to the historian Lynne Viola in her book Peasant Rebels Under Stalin, even the cagiest estimations of the death toll that occurred suggest that over the course of the decade between the 1920s and early 1930s, more than 1,100 people were directly killed by the state. Even more Russians indirectly suffered death by famine as a result of the agricultural process of collectivization.

(210; 213-214) What is not so well-known, however, is that starvation also had its roots in the policies employed by the resistance of peasants as well as the policies of the state. The main political agents of resistance to Stalin's agricultural policies are to be found amongst the land-owning peasants who were determined not to cede their property or produce to the state. The main thrust of the collectivization of the peasants occurred in the 'bread basket of Russia, 'i.e. The Ukrainian republic, the Russian Volga, the Northern Caucasus.

Just as it is important to note the depth of the resistance amongst the peasantry, it is equally important to note that Stalin's actions were not simply the result of insane cruelty. Stalin had a particular economic system he wished to impose upon the Russian people. Had he not undertaken dictatorial or at very least an imposition policy of action, the modernization, collectivization, and one must even admit, some improvements of the Russian agricultural system could not have been achieved.

This does not mean that an historian must validate the dictator's methods. However, it would be blind to deny the fact that some coercive measures were necessary were Russia not to 'stand still' in terms of its development. In essence, Stalin had no choice but to opt for some kind of forced modernization of Russia's agricultural production, although one must question the types of force by which this enforcement was implemented.

Stalin claimed that the peasants would never agree to act in accordance to the far-reaching needs of the developing Russian nation. Even if the stakes involved the peasant's own and their country's future and security, certain methods of behavior and agricultural development were ingrained in the peasant's system of life and belief.

There is a famous Russian proverb that when asked what a Russian peasant would do if for every bit of fortune meted out to him, his neighbor would get double? The peasant states he would ask for one of his eyes to be put out. This joke is an example of the profound unwillingness of peasants to see any of their neighbors exceed in wealth and status than themselves, and the lack of trust amongst the private owning farmers of the pre-communist era.

As Viola points out, many peasants were exceedingly class conscious. Those that owned land took descriptions by the state of the peasantry as a whole as poor as an insult, rather than as a badge of solidarity between the middle class and impoverished. Not handing over grain to the state could become a badge of class pride, of status as well as of economic need.

(16-18) Lynne Viola's work on the subject of the Russian peasantry is so interesting because it goes against the common perception of Stalin's 'cult of personality.' Many in the non, or never-communist West have assumed Stalin's power was so overwhelming and fear-inspiring, there was little resistance to his propaganda amongst the Soviet people, except for some dissents who were quickly silenced or imprisoned. In this view, Stalin easily took upon the role of the 'little father Czar' who was obeyed without any resistance.

However, Viola shows that the loyalty to their class, distaste for those perceived to be lower class, love of the monarchy, and love of traditional ways of life characteristic of middle-class peasants was not so easily supplanted, despite the privation all the peasantry had endured during the war years of the first world conflict. Viola points out that Russia was a mainly agricultural nation before Stalin. Over 85% of the populace were rural, despite communism's official status as a dictatorship of the proletariat, in contrast to Europe.

Stalin wished to change this and to make a more 'balanced' economy for Russia. The entire system of trade and distribution was in shambles. His attempt to collectivize and to urbanize resulted in what could be said to constitute a second Russian revolution, a more purely economic one that met with a great deal of resistance amongst the largely politically conservative peasantry. (15-16) Viola shows how peasants employed traditional Russian forms of resistance, including variations upon the 'scorched earth' policy used by Russians against Napoleon during the 19th century.

In resisting peasants engaged in the seemingly irrational mass destruction of livestock and undermined Soviet grain collection by destroying their produce. Women were the agents of much peasant resistance. According to Viola this was because authorities assumed were less political and more naive, but also because women have traditionally, in Russian culture, managed the household affairs and have been the conservative.